MLS, players' union reach deal, avert strike

Five days before the season opener, MLS and the players' union have struck a deal on a new, five-year collective bargaining agreement. The players had threatened to strike if a new pact couldn't be reached this weekend. With approximately 25 players participating, the sides met all day and night Thursday and Friday at the offices of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service in Washington, and announced the deal this afternoon.

The players' primary issue was free agency, and although they were not granted full rights to move between clubs in the league, they did agree to a "re-entry draft" for those out of contract at the end of the season.

"Going forward, we are going to have a real relationship with the league as opposed to being combative at times, and that's crucial for any league to do well," Los Angeles Galaxy forward Landon Donovan said. "We have been extremely unified and united throughout this process. It's been a very productive few weeks. We are all mainly excited to play soccer this year and proud of what we accomplished. This is not a one-day celebration; this is the start of many good things to come for many years for our players and our league."

According to union chief Bob Foose:
*For the first time, a majority of players will have guaranteed contracts.
*The players' ability to move freely within the league will be greatly improved.
*Player compensation will be increased substantially.

Further details were not immediately revealed. The sides said it will take a while to finalize specifics and make them available to the public. Rest assured, it's a done deal.

"This has been a major victory for the process of collective bargaining," federal mediator George Cohen said.

"It was not fun, it was tiring, but it was productive," Commissioner Don Garber said. "I look forward to not having to do it quite like this in five more years."

For more info.....

Free agency was not adopted, as the players had hoped, but the sides did compromise.

Said Garber: "MLS was founded on the principle that our owners would not be keeping against each other for player services. When we think of free agency, it is that concept of internal bidding, and there will not be internal bidding for player services. Players whose options are not exercised, players who are terminated and players at a certain age - and just respect the fact that we have got to get this out to our own people before we get it to the public - will have the opportunity with a certain mechanism of also going into this re-entry draft. That process addresses, to a large extent but not to the total extent, the players' wishes and desires. At the same time, it provides the league with something that is crucial to us and will remain crucial to us. In our view, there is no actual free agency."

Added Foose: "We made progress on this area. Not necessarily as much as we would have chosen, but that is collective bargaining agreement. We made a lot of progress in other areas as well, and there is real progress on correcting certain situations that were vitally important to our players involving movement within the league, including teams retaining rights to players. There are changes there, significant changes."

I wonder what nonsensical "re-entry draft" they've come up with now. Knowing these guys, am sure it'll be something convoluted that no ordinary fan will understand. Anyway, good to hear they averted a strike.

A) A deal is done. I was never rooting for the players or the management, just for a deal to be done, and it has been. GREAT news.

B) I'm in Charleston. I get to see the team play tonight, and I'm optimistic. Also, the weather is PERFECT.

C) Walking around today, I ran into Dwayne De Rosario, Juian de Guzman, and Jim Brennan. I had my United jersey shirt on, and nodded to them as I walked past, and then Brennan says, "You know you couldn't wear that around Toronto." I turned and said, "Well thank goodness I'm not." We all laughed and I wished them good luck. Seemed like really nice guys. Who knew Canadians would be so nice?

I wonder if there's an "out" clause where, say, if the USMNT does well this summer, there's a huge increase in fan interest and (monetary) support of MLS, that the players can call for an early start to negotiations for a new contract.

This at least dispels the facist vibe that the administration was giving off. That might sound a little extreme, but according to this simple definition:

A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition...

is appropriate. I understand how difficult it is to keep MLS alive, but it has to be able to change or the battle might not be worth the result.

Having been through several all-night bargaining sessions, I really can empathize with both sides. For the union guys, your guts churn, you wonder if you've achieved enough, you wonder if your sleep deprived mind is playing tricks on you. At the end of the day, both sides realized they had gone as far as they could go without warfare and clearly, neither side wanted that. Congratulations to labor and management and to George Cohen for keeping the train on the tracks. See you at RFK on the 3rd.

The United will be playing as scheduled and we are all delighted with the news but there are still several teams in severe financial distress including Chicago and the new franchise in Philly. Following the last expansion there is still a risk that the league will lose a team in the next year. But today is a day to celebrate that the 2010 season will be intact and not to worry about the future.

To the poster who questioned whether the players were serious about a srike, not only where they ready but those on the margins were making plans for their future after pro soccer.

For those of you not keeping tabs, United won 2-0, both Moreno goals in the first half. First a great flick header to the back post, and the second a penalty (which he chipped in) in first half stoppage time.

Lots of fun. For some reason, I feel more optimistic after that game than I did last years'.

In MlS vs Fraser, the league convinced the court that MLS was not a single entity simply to suppress the players' wages and yet...we now have the league saying that they will "never" let the teams bid against each other for players. Think about it.

Meanwhile, I'm in Richmond for the Jefferson Cup girls' tournament, and in other soccer news, the Washington Freedom beat the U Va women here 3-2. It was a very entertaining friendly and quite well attended (free admission). The grandstand at Sports Backers Stadium (which, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe is the old VCU stadium) looked full, which means there were maybe 2,000 people there. As for the game, the Wambach-Bompastor interplay has got great chemistry. Lisa De Vanna came on for Abby at around 70', and is she fast. UVA hung in there, though, twice tying, and though they were overmatched, they didn't fold. I might add that the weather was perfect. All things being equal, which they never are, I guess I would rather have been in Charleston, but this was a fine display of the women's game.

I imagine the re-entry draft will work similar to the NFL's restricted free agency tenders or the supplemental draft.

Either teams will tender draft picks or allocation $ to the player who is out of contract, and the team that "drafts" them sends those picks/allocation to the former team (which is really no different than the old way of working); or once you pick a player in the "draft" you forfeit that pick in the next SuperDraft.

Scenario 1 seems more likely, since your just putting a new marketing spin on the old way of working.

In MlS vs Fraser, the league convinced the court that MLS was not a single entity simply to suppress the players' wages and yet...we now have the league saying that they will "never" let the teams bid against each other for players. Think about it.

Posted by: Jphubba | March 20, 2010 10:34 PM
__________________________________________
MLS rightly convinced the courts that MLS was not a monopoly. This is due to the fact that there are hundreds of other leagues to bid for player services. Players do not have to sign with MLS to work in the soccer industry. Thus it is not a monopoly. You don't want different departments (the teams)of the same company (MLS) bidding over an employee of the company (MLS). All players knew the rules before they signed on with MLS. It is right or fair? Who knows. But it's what they signed on for.

The players caved. The investor-operators who spoke out this week about the consequesnces of a strike scared the players into a deal.

The league's system of restraining players from at least a reasonable amount of movement among its teams, subject to other rules such as a salary cap and minimum service, would not pass the rule-of-reason test as under federal anti-trust law.

The players' union, if it indeed a certified labor union as under fedral law (MLBPA is not, NFLPA is) should have decertified and gone into federal court and sued. It would have won, just as the NFL players did in the McNeil case in 1993.